Re: [pim] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13

Stig Venaas <> Wed, 11 December 2019 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA47C120232 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:57:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0gVhd4Lu2u29 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85FFD1201B7 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e10so50037edv.9 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:57:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=v4XyxFj59yArycN5fSVzrP+nzpPL4faFyLHnY/Lr7WU=; b=rtYES1+QalKKx4QTgjt7nqGSqJrlRZ9Dyq7JLwBrZzr1X/NmgpCXxt3ogPp/jbryoG EenCsiWLc+Zrwxyscx1IHwHNkB9SlaqRfx/yo/A+GTr3mDJN4llXa7VSh2skdSXV0SF0 IzhG4JEfS90g+Yz1Ni/J51sOZcug+LMPyVoh/Gg7Dhm39n+G8h67jd4AH3wNp0GOGSDY PVyWLB2Bz4TtqSN4/SJkBEFMuIxkbkpjboGHLrlos+SUbP7xqjYcJE34aaqjr2bJlXMA uH7KVTUjSO3THNdYpg2CgMdpjkAjXgg005t+efbOjaGqDqtaZhey1Mivxv7uW3DQV/Wk epwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=v4XyxFj59yArycN5fSVzrP+nzpPL4faFyLHnY/Lr7WU=; b=DmdEXgI2mAV9nRW0YcFBXYpYDkZUtedWllTXhTGpE72obopeOYurrsZpnYE9td7PRS 0r+nlvtGW9N82vCCElf7FgLM4ryHNoyDdQt9kMpW0n3sIdmCNWP3ifUR8wAR0qyhFBmN 1hzGlpyku7tML+IKGcmcRGlpunGANWEpJKAm5sGFhYlSTR9O5tfHjx5gOYlMK55hv6zm m6Iw8xgpmWJ6hKEi4hAxuKlEgx8dyHIyu3SvtKrwk49s+2Na94utMhxM/9E+WURLXgUD E/XsvHn838LDbJMVkF3yyCr0Sm5dKZOZfjjrtVY6KwhPz4T+mj8FR/qwp0lgivaKIgaY y86w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVc1Yj276LjmImP2S4LsjdV1rFot6H+FUfgUfplxrr0JgW8E78S jzD9GibSnJfS83+Dr9oQvZSx56QqahM4+XLC69h2Xg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxmdWPV2e9WxAEJTsWohk9eB7ewrnacc00sxSlV/9pJ+0NwNI7tJSrB3bowPQ20zuhSxiPWZiOROHzDkP1T7QM=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d04f:: with SMTP id n15mr6314793edo.76.1576105047904; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:57:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Stig Venaas <>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:57:17 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael Scharf <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pim] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:57:32 -0000


Thanks for the review, I updated the terms as you suggested in the
latest version.


On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:48 AM Michael Scharf via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> Reviewer: Michael Scharf
> Review result: Ready
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
> discussion list for information.
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> if you reply to or forward this review.
> As far as I can see there are no fundamental transport-related issues in this
> document. All in all, the impact of selecting a Group Designated Router may be
> quite similar to the existing PIM-SM selection of a Designated Router.
> A little bit of wordsmithing: In Section 6, it could be useful to replace the
> term "enough total capacity" by another term, such as "enough available
> capacity" or "enough spare capacity". The router links can obviously also carry
> other, non-PIM traffic. Then there must be enough available bandwidth left for
> the PIM traffic on top of non-PIM traffic. The term "total capacity" is a bit
> vague; it could possibly refer to the physical link capacity (e.g., 1 Gbit/s
> for Gigabit Ethernet). Only considering the physical link capacity would not be
> correct. Actually, one could write more about the traffic engineering aspects
> of GDR selection, e.g., whether it is realistic that traffic distribution is
> really equal. Yet, given that there seems to be only one implementation
> according to the shepherd write-up, just changing the term may be sufficient.
> --
> last-call mailing list